Aadams

Yes that is the correct tweeter but not the version that is pre-assembled for your application. Read the above thread. You can put a cap in series and keep your crossover standard to later drop in a rebuilt original. Your 5s are already back wired so no front wire conversion. Read closely and ask questions. The fully pre-assembled version is available from another supplier who is currently closed for 6 weeks. You could message RoyC about possibly acquiring a pair. Adams

Crumpets Because you addressed me, I will reply. The tweeter will fit and operate but it is not the tweeter that I would expect anyone here to recommend for an AR5. The purist in me says the AR92 tweeter would be out of character for the AR5 but it could be made to work adequately with crossover changes which could be calculated by some of the more talented folks here but even then, would be an approximation and, you may not like the result. Considering your location, your most expedient and cost-effective solution for the tweeter, IMO, is the HIVI mod which if you DIY is less expensive than a tweeter rebuild. Fully pre-assembled and ready to drop in it costs about the same as rebuild. However, you might want to take another path for now. Consider this. Put your AR5 woofers in your father’s 92s and I think you will have fully functioning correct 92s. You can then look for a pair of AR2ax 4 bolt woofers which are plentiful. Adams

Don't move the tweeters. If you feel competent, disconnect the speaker wire and touch the + and - at the points circled below. Keep the volume low and on a signal at which the tweeter should operate. Your working tweeter is still not operating correctly. It is a cruel illusion that is only satisfying if you can't hear above 6000hz. The AR3a resto guide was written before an enterprising AR enthusiast figured out how to rebuild them. The HIVI gets good marks as a substitute and I am certain will provide what you are looking for on axis but, for now apparently, there really is nothing that matches those old tweeters if you want to hear the Roy Allison AR sound. Adams

Crumpets. RE: The Tweeters One reason your AR18 sounds better than your AR5 is the division of work among the drivers. In the 18, all the high notes AND sparkly bits are in a single durable driver (tweeter) as opposed to the AR5 where almost all the higher musical notes are in the midrange driver and the tweeter with rare exceptions reproduces only high harmonics. Your tweeters, to quote RoyC, are compromised in the sense that they appear normal and operate but their output is so diminished they cannot be brought into a pleasing balance. The sound difference in comparison to a correctly working tweeter is stark. Properly functioning AR5s are fully capable of presenting the sparkly atmospherics that you are missing and for which there are remedies but, without knowing what is practical in your part of the world, it is difficult for any of us to recommend a viable plan of action. Assuming your goal is to get your AR5 close to original performance, if you were the in US the recommendations, in rank order, would be: - 1. Have your tweeters rebuilt - 2. Purchase a HiVi tweeter with the inductor mod as discussed in the AR3a Restoration Guide. Do not trash your original tweeters. Auction them off or save them for the day you can have them rebuilt. Adams

Most of this thread has been about the speakers atop the stack so this post is a twist that focuses on the AR58s sub-woofer. As you an see in the photos the 58s are raised 1ft above the floor but are also inverted, with woofer on top, and placed square against the wall within 2 to 3 inches of the woofer frame. Several position configurations were tried, following the Roy Allision research regarding woofer placement and this configuration yields the smoothest bass of all up to 200hz where the woofers are low passed. Mid bass peaks are gone and perceivable room resonances at the listening position have vanished. The curve for this position shows a rise, which is present, at the very lowest response range but I have yet to hear a recording where it is a problem. I also got lucky because the Allison study only predicts effects from first reflection from nearby surfaces and not additional walls as you would find in an actual listening room but it gives a good start.

Agree. All the old surround receivers that I have seen have a Direct Switch or 2 Channel button or Surround on/off. In short, it could be a button depression that solves the "bass and depth" problem.

Tmc Re: The bass. Do you have the speakers connected identically to your Sony? + and - or red and black should match. Your woofers could be wired internally opposite also which would weaken the bass even if they are wired correctly externally.

TMC Your 2axs are a somewhat odd mix but nothing in the photos would suggest they are not genuine AR. Your original tweeter has been replaced with a back wired version that appears to be an AR replacement but not like the original. The woofer foam replacements are not of the most favored type these days but they are good enough for decent bass and nothing in the images suggests why you would be missing "bass and depth". The pots could be original. Externally they appear correct but, do they have any effect on the sound of the speaker when they are rotated? Are you sure all of the drivers have output? Are you sure there are no leaks around the woofer gasket? Do you know if the original capacitors were replaced? Something could have been wired incorrectly when the repairs were done You may have to remove the woofers and look inside the boxes to resolve or even find the solution to your problem. You will get plenty of good advice here but be ready to supply images if you are going to do this yourself. Aadams

I am considering the small ADS dual dome 3 ways from the late 70s to the 90s with 8 inch or smaller woofer. Anything like a 710 or 810. My question is what is the status of the ADS parts market ? Is the availability as good as AR or is it more like a needle in a haystack. I have almost zero ADS knowledge beyond brand awareness and a connection with Braun. Adams

Assuming they are operating correctly, the woofer in both speakers is carrying all but the last half octave of music. The tweeters are playing 8 notes plus important atmospherics, basically, and it may be that the 8" woofer of the Scott is better than the 10 "Dynaco over those 7.5 octaves. I would think the 8" would be a little less beamy also. And the last six inches of sound travel between your ears is most important and only known by you. Adams

I know nothing about Scott speakers except what is on the internet. The A25 also crosses over at around the same frequency.

I thought I recognized your handle from the past which meant you probably had other speakers. I looked and found you had A25s at one time and guessed you still had them. Adams

Have you tried connecting your A25s and placing them next to or on top of the Scott's to compare? You need a reference IMO. Ears are fickle and duplicitous. Adams

DCM Time Window vs AR5 Short version: As setup in this configuration, the Time Window 1a and AR 5 are indistinguishable after switching. My Time Windows sound the best I have ever heard them. Longer Version Test setup: Electronics feeding both systems are identical including equalizer settings The bass response of both systems is identical below 200hz because they are bi-amped thus, this comparison is of performance above 200hz. Drivers for both systems are set at listening height with cabinets almost touching. The DCMs have no attenuators. The AR attenuators are set to tweeter max and mid about 75%. AR tweeters are Chris rebuilds. Both systems were volume and frequency-balance equalized to a third system that served as a reference for my ears. (Note the AR 5s had been equalized previously but I reset them for this test. If the DCMs could not have been closely matched in frequency balance at this point without equalizer adjustments, I would have stopped the test. Listening Listened to several hours of pop and jazz voice recordings. At times the intervals were long enough for me to forget which speaker I was hearing. Occasionally I would repeat a recording and push the switch button to listen and compare on the other speaker pair. There is no practical difference in the sound of these speakers above 200hz. If you like the expansive sound of the AR Classic 3 way domes the Time Windows are very similar in sound. Caveats: This test was conducted without the need to optimize speaker placement for bass reproduction because each speaker system was used as a “top” for a separate bass system. IMO -The Time Window 1a, standing alone, has bass extension similar to an AR 8 inch, that is IMO. DCM claims for bass were more substantial but were never stated, for example, as a -3db down point. Crossover frequency was never published but must be well above 1khz. Time Windows, with no attenuation, have a bright sound much like an AR Classic with controls set to max output. You will almost certainly need an equalizer. I know from experience, pre-amp tone controls are inadequate to tame them.

This is an old thread. 6 years ago, the OP said he would get back to us with his thoughts on the Time Window vs AR3a. He has yet to get back with the answer. Time passed and the thread was forgotten but I rediscovered it recently and decided to attempt a continuation. My Time Windows, which I purchased new, have been returned to service reconnected on a switch with AR5s sitting adjacent within 6 inches. Each Time Window 1a contains two 6 inch cones and two 1” dome tweeters in a transmission line (bass reflex) design arranged much like an Allison 1. In their instruction sheet, DCM talks about the great bass response but I don’t think these speakers will strongly respond below 60hz. The piston area of two sixes is barely larger than a single 8" woofer. Their sound however is expansive, like a TOTL classic AR, and now that I have my AR5s dialed in I will compare the two systems above 200hz, with bass for both being handled by an AR 12 inch. The specifications below are from the factory instruction sheet. For such an expensive speaker in the mid-80s, the specs are vague in the areas of frequency response, dispersion and crossover frequency…nothing like what AR supplied in the classic years. DCM Time Window 1A Specifications Weight 32 lbs Dimensions 36 H x 14.75 W x 11.75 D inches Power Req 10 Watts recommended minimum per channel 50 watts RMS continuous pink noise max 20hz-20khz Sensitivity 89db/watt one meter on axis Impedance 5 ohms minimum 6-8 ohms nominal Frequency Range 25hz- 18khz Dispersion 180 degrees horizontal 60 degrees vertical

Ligs What is the approx. model year for those JBLs 36ii and are they ported? I found them but no dates. That six inch speaker will strain down low IMO. Was it playing full range or do you have the low range constrained as with the JBL 10"? Otherwise I am not surprised the 10" sounds more relaxed at higher sound levels. Adams

Point taken. I am making a statement about the cost to cover the bottom bottom 2 1/2 octaves comparable to an AR9. Just pointing out good subs that are highly adaptable for home music applications are uncommon and expensive. They are much more expensive than using a an AR 12inch or an OLA as a passive sub-woofer for satellites. Of the three elements required for the passive solution only the AR 12" would not meet the criterion but taken together the bass system would be 66% new.

I just finished doing another survey of the sub-woofer landscape, both powered and passive, for home music applications. Not much has changed in the last couple of years Criteria for selection are 1 Essentially flat between 32hz and 220hz 2. low pass variable from 30 to 200hz 3. Selectable between 12 and 24db/octave slope 4. XLR, high level, and RCA connections preferable. Here are some random listed conclusions. Minimum price for above criteria appears to be $1500/pair for factory modified Hsu Mk2 subs. The modification would extend the low pass from the standard 90hz to up 200hz. The variable crossover range would be 30-200hz. Mod is $50 per unit with 24db/octave slope only. SVS 1000 and 2000 hit the mark except they are strictly 12db/octave. New passive subs for home audio do not appear to be available except in kit form and even then, there are very few choices. Almost all powered subs are optimized for HT use. On paper most do not appear to offer sufficiently flexible adjustments to blend with the wide range of satellites that could be used for critical music listening. Exceptions are: SVS PCB and Ultras beginning at $2000/ pair Revel Performa beginning at $4400/ pair Conclusion: IMO the best value currently is an AR12” AS with a DSP amp and a 31 band equalizer or an Allison ESW if you can find one. Feel free to change my mind by providing new facts that I may have overlooked. Adams

I recommend you do a swap of the drivers in question. Just move each to the other box and see if the problem moves. If it doesn't move the problem is not in the speaker driver. JMO. Adams

Does the JBL127h1 have a cut freq or is it allowed to roll off below a 100Hz? Aadams

Thanks for the page, without which I am not sure I could have decoded the above statement. What I think you are saying is the 1259s are flat to 32hz and the HSU goes below that. At first I thought you were saying the JBL 10" was flat to 32. Do you have a shelf on the JBLs or do they just roll off to the 1259s? The subs you have are no longer available except used and finding matched, used pairs is near impossible and few sellers will ship.

Are you using two of these with the NHTs?

Good article. Moran’s description of the symphonic bass drum hit exactly describes what I hear easily on my AR9s and only slightly on my other systems. I believe that separate powered sub woofers can produce bass far lower than I practically need for music. The problem with powered subwoofers for me has been my inability to make them integrate pleasingly for music playback in stereo. I think I could have eventually found a solution for my hybrid system by shopping in the $1000/unit range but by then I had stumbled upon a passive solution in the AR58 cabinets. If I ever do move to powered subs I will still use a DSP amp to set the high pass frequency and bypass the subwoofer crossover. Luckily, I won’t have a problem so long as I don’t outlive my speakers. For the foreseeable future I can still find plenty of AR 12” to serve as passive units in the event I lose mine. Still, it would be nice to experiment with a couple of powered subs but I am already out of space for systems and the cost for new, just to experiment, is just not reasonable IMO. I don't have family that is remotely interested in owning any of this stuff, if given to them. I am in a bind until I rationalize my way out. Was that the entire article? It had an abrupt ending. Adams

If you have read previous posts you know I did a same room comparison and established that the Sat Stack compares well against the my 9s and 3as. Over the last 2 months I have tried to volume equalize the 9s, 5a and the Sat Stack using the 9s as the volume level base line. The basic procedure uses adjacent listening rooms as follows. Music source and equalizer settings are identical for all systems AR5 Tweeter control max AR5 Mid control is about 75% max AR9 controls are Zeroed Sat Stack has no attenuators but is set down 3db at 1000hz 12db per octave slope on an in line equalizer Listening distance for all systems is about 8 ft Volume level is low enough to not be easily heard from the adjacent room This may seem klugey but I have no help in doing this. 1. Set the volume level for the AR9s at 8ft 2. Set the volume for either of the other two systems until, when walking from one room to the other there is no apparent volume drop Results: On instrumental music of any kind that I have tried there is no difference that I can discern except for the occasional obvious low bass on the AR 9s. Playing song after song of mostly non-classical solo voice did reveal differences but I don’t know how to describe them. All three systems sound almost identical. If the test were blind I don’t know if I could reliably identify them when switched but in the absence of a helper, the best I can do is say the Sat Stack with its more modern drivers seems to have an edge over the others on recordings of solo voice. Bottom line. If I lost my ARs I could get back to an AR sound eventually using more modern equipment though I don’t know what I would use for a woofer. Adams

I thought someone more expert would have answered by now. That looks like a whizzer cone ... One voice coil with two cones. The small cone helps extend the high range of the larger speaker. I always, perhaps incorrectly, associated whizzer cones with radios and cheap utility speakers. IMO that is not a correct replacement even if it will fit but by now you should already know the answer. How does it sound? Adams